On 9/12/23 16:43, John Garry wrote:
> On 12/09/2023 01:56, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> Change ata_sas_slave_configure() to return the return value of
>> ata_scsi_dev_config() to ensure that any error from that function is
>> propagated to libsas.
>
> This seems reasonable, but does libsas even check the return code? From
> a glance, I don't think that it does...
Indeed it does not. This functions still always return 0 at present, so not a
big deal. But for consistency , I will add the check in libsas.
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Damien Le Moal <dlemoal@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> ---
>> drivers/ata/libata-sata.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c b/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
>> index 5d31c08be013..0748e9ea4f5f 100644
>> --- a/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
>> +++ b/drivers/ata/libata-sata.c
>> @@ -1169,8 +1169,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ata_sas_tport_delete);
>> int ata_sas_slave_configure(struct scsi_device *sdev, struct ata_port *ap)
>> {
>> ata_scsi_sdev_config(sdev);
>> - ata_scsi_dev_config(sdev, ap->link.device);
>> - return 0;
>> +
>> + return ata_scsi_dev_config(sdev, ap->link.device);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(ata_sas_slave_configure);
>>
>
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
